« January 2006 | Main | March 2006 »

Converting the canaille, another H. L. Mencken rip-off

Posted by pauldavies on February 28, 2006 | Comments (0)

Imagine, if you will, that it is the summer of 1925. You are in Baltimore, Maryland. Being a worldly fellow (or lady) you are prone to taking an interest in the issues of the day. Right now, the talk of the town is the Scopes 'Monkey' Trial, taking place in Dayton, Tennessee. (For reference, you might want to consider the modern equivalent).

Your paper of choice for coverage of such matters is the Baltimore Evening Sun, who have sent their star reporter, H. L. Mencken along to cover proceedings. This is part of what he has to say:

"It is common to assume that human progress affects everyone—that even the dullest man, in these bright days, knows more than any man of, say, the Eighteenth Century, and is far more civilized. This assumption is quite erroneous. The men of the educated minority, no doubt, know more than their predecessors, and of some of them, perhaps, it may be said that they are more civilized—though I should not like to be put to giving names—but the great masses of men, even in this inspired republic, are precisely where the mob was at the dawn of history. They are ignorant, they are dishonest, they are cowardly, they are ignoble. They know little if anything that is worth knowing, and there is not the slightest sign of a natural desire among them to increase their knowledge.

"Such immortal vermin, true enough, get their share of the fruits of human progress, and so they may be said, in a way, to have their part in it. The most ignorant man, when he is ill, may enjoy whatever boons and usufructs modern medicine may offer—that is, provided he is too poor to choose his own doctor. He is free, if he wants to, to take a bath. The literature of the world is at his disposal in public libraries. He may look at works of art. He may hear good music. He has at hand a thousand devices for making life less wearisome and more tolerable: the telephone, railroads, bichloride tablets, newspapers, sewers, correspondence schools, delicatessen. But he had no more to do with bringing these things into the world than the horned cattle in the fields, and he does no more to increase them today than the birds of the air.

"On the contrary, he is generally against them, and sometimes with immense violence. Every step in human progress, from the first feeble stirrings in the abyss of time, has been opposed by the great majority of men. Every valuable thing that has been added to the store of man's possessions has been derided by them when it was new, and destroyed by them when they had the power. They have fought every new truth ever heard of, and they have killed every truth-seeker who got into their hands.

[…]

"The inferior man's reasons for hating knowledge are not hard to discern. He hates it because it is complex—because it puts an unbearable burden upon his meager capacity for taking in ideas. Thus his search is always for short cuts."

From Homo Neanderthalensis, H. L. Mencken, The Baltimore Evening Sun, June 29, 1925

I hope you enjoyed your trip into Coolidge-era America. But for now, welcome back to Blair's Blighty. The topic of concern for today's sensible, sentient, souls is the rather tragic alleged demise of political participation, and just what is to be done about it. This is spurred, of course, by the Power report, about which, I'm sure you're all now terribly well informed. (And if you're not: hop to it).

It doesn't seem worth going into the debate in much detail here, the 'decline' is, after all, measured in large part by party membership and turnout, about which, a slump in either cannot automatically be taken as a totally bad sign. However, what can be taken, yet again, is that when the issue of the voting system is discussed at any length and in any detail more thoroughly than say, how it would be done were one to explain it to one's cat, it is always concluded that First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) should be scrapped, on account of it failing to adequately meet any of the objectives desired in a voting system, save that of being interpretable by cretins.

Usually such an argument is met by supporters of FPTP (hereafter, in honour of H. L., Homo Neandertalensis Mk II) with scorn, saying that it is not reasoned independent inquiry that suggests FPTP should be shown the door, but bitter, self-interested, lefty-conspiring. In some cases they have a point, but in cases such as the Power inquiry, they do not.

Take, for example, Ferdinand Mount, vice-chair of the Power Commission and Telegraph columnist. (see also here)

As the report was launched at a reception in London last night, Ferdinand Mount, the commission's vice-chairman, said he had been converted to electoral reform during its 18-month inquiry.

He said: "I have spouted all the arguments against proportional representation myself in the past. David Cameron and Ken Clarke are spouting them still. But I have been converted to reform, not so much because it is fairer than first-past-the-post but because it is the only way to galvanise the parties to canvass every ward in every seat."

But Ferdinand is a smart chap. Educated, aware, prone to the occasional free thought. It's no wonder he was converted. But everyone else?

Such is the power of STV that the British Columbia Citizens' Assembly on electoral reform, which sat in 2004, came out overwhelmingly in favour of it, only to see the general populace, burdened by both fear and better things to do, narrowly reject it. (I say reject, I of course mean 'only give it 57 per cent support when 60 per cent was needed').

The Mk IIs are often not of the breed supposedly—if we take Henry's assertions to still ring true—incapable of embracing knowledge, and generally acting around anything that smells a bit radical like a bigoted power-hungry policeman acts around anything that looks a bit foreign. They're stupid in a different way. Or if they're not stupid, they're fragrantly dishonest scoundrels, which is just as bad.

But, as they say, none of this is new. And as it's not new, it shouldn't have too much of an impact on the campaign, which, let us remember, predates even Mencken.

There will always be an army of the insecure fighting to stay in the swamp, just as there will always be those ready to listen to reason and dare to make things better. (Technically, both will also always be trumped in number by those who just don't care, but we can ignore them for now). The good also generally outs (with something of an inevitable time-lag, of course); although in politics, this fair cauldron of enmity where we lay our scene, this is not always so.

Whether the noble truth of STV will ever be met with a noble experiment is as unknowable as how elected members of parliament can think that the Danish cartoons mess was a worse incident than 9/11 or 7/7. We can, however, try to have some fun finding out.

The PM and the Power Report

Posted by pauldavies on February 27, 2006 | Comments (2)

Press Briefing this morning:

Asked what the Prime Minister's view was about the Power Report, the PMOS said that there were many issues dealt within the Power Report. They were all matters that were debated as much within Parties as between Parties. People took different views about some of the issues contained in them. The Prime Minister had no doubt that the report would add to that debate.

Pick those jaws up off the floor people.

Who asked the question to which this is the answer?

Posted by pauldavies on February 27, 2006 | Comments (0)

There are two reasons, say the Men Who Should Know, why a governmental department or minister orders a report. One is to confirm existing biases. The other is as a token gesture. There are other reports, which don't fall into either category. These reports, provided that they don't have an intimate attachment to the power of celebrity or a celebrity-sized bank balance, tend to fall into the bin before they fall onto an appositely deserving desk. After all, political parties do not act for, as one can but hope independent inquiries are motivated by, the good of the people. Should a government be found to be doing something so audacious, it is most probably a felicitious side-effect.

This is not something one should rail against with too much venom. It is the result of a trait consistent with human nature and evident in all of us. My form of this is most evidently found in a propensity to read books written by Bertie Russell & Co. and ignore (relatively) comment in the media or on blogs.

Parties, or more relevantly, governing parties, like to justify their opinions the same way everyone else does. Confirmation bias sadly doesn't discriminate against those in power.

Ho, and indeed, hum.

With this, and past ramblings, in mind, one might well expect the rest of this post to descend into a cynical submission to the POWER Inquiry debate, something along the lines of how after a couple of days the report will live us as nothing more than an occasional aside in those debates in the Commons that, owing to their somewhat soporific, anti-Sun-editorial nature, only tend to trouble the Hansard reporters, nobly exercising their shorthand in the name of the posterity of insignificance.

Well, maybe. But there is, for once, hope. Or, reading it another way, an uncharacteristic lightness of cynical pondering. Or, to put it differently again, a mistake about to be made.

This report, could, with a bit of luck, find itself away from the bin, and onto the spaces on desks usually reserved for the more *important* types of report mentioned above. (This is reinforced as every paper ran with it at once, rather than it becoming, for example, The Independent's 'thing'.)

Obviously Blair can't touch it, it's not really his bag. But not having to win any more elections, his self-interest lies elsewhere nowadays. Brown, Cameron and Huhne, on the other hand, have battles to be won, things-to-be-seen-doing-something-about to be seen doing something about, and above all, their faces to get into the media, at whatever cost.

We've already seen that Gordon has stolen a march on his foes, by tacitly implying in the Guardian (and, rumour has it being a lot more forthright with his opinions in private, suggesting that there's more to come when the time is right). Cameron and Huhne thus can't be seen to be standing still or ignoring the question of disengagement, especially not Cameron, he of the 'I'm going to make politics fun and groovy for the kids, not like that boring old git Brown'.

This doesn't mean they have to do anything, of course, and history and the like would suggest they won't. Tony is still in charge after all, and whoever gets there next will have better things to do than mess about with the system that got them there, but still… it could add up to a longer life than usual for an independent report, and could yet get reborn nearer the election fulfilling the need for things to make vacuous promises about.

The problem of disengagement is not going to go away, perhaps ever, and thus every party will try to tackle it, whether they really want to or not. Sooner or later the chat will produce something. What that something is remains to be seen.

27 Feb: a red letter day for the voting reform campaign

Posted by malcolmclark on February 27, 2006 | Comments (0)

Breaking News Mon 27 Feb 1.30am - the Power Inquiry's final report has just been launched. The first editions of today's papers are out. And the big story is that we are winning the arguments on voting reform. The Inquiry calls for a change to a more proportional system. Gordon Brown signals he may be prepared to reopen the debate on electoral reform for the House of Commons. This is a significant day for the campaign.

1) Power to the People - the final report of the Power Inquiry

The commission, chaired by the QC and Labour peer Helena Kennedy, calls for an end to the first-past-the post voting system. The report demands a new electoral system "to ensure that all votes count by having some influence on the final outcome of an election." Although it does not propose a specific method, it suggests its goals could be met by the single transferable vote system in which voters mark candidates in order of preference. The inquiry concludes that electoral reform is "one part of a wider 'jigsaw' of change required to re-engage the British people with their political system". More from the Independent's coverage here.

2) Gordon Brown signals that the electoral reform debate should be reopened

In a comment piece for today's Guardian Gordon Brown writes: "The Power report opens the way to renewed debate on issues from the role of parties and electoral reform to voting at 16."

3) The Independent re-activates its Campaign for Democracy.

The paper has a number of articles about the Power Inquiry. View them via this link. A challenge has also been set. John Rentoul writes a disparaging comment piece about electoral reform, which deserves a response from as many people as possible.

That's it for now. This page will be updated throughout the day, along with our blog, where you can add your comments and ideas.

Note for Media: Malcolm Clark, Co-ordinator of Make Votes Count, is available for comment and interview. (t) 020 7928 2076 / (m) 07733322148

Our man in Dagenham

Posted by malcolmclark on February 24, 2006 | Comments (0)

The unofficial spokesman for Labour's forgotten heartlands and core voters - Jon Cruddas - has once again managed to get a choice quote about voting reform onto the airwaves. In response to a question about Tony Blair's legacy and the handover of power, the Dagenham MP said he believed it was necessary to remove the "zealotry" surrounding public services reforms, which he said were based on the "preferences and prejudices of swing voters in marginal seats".

In Praise of Idleness (Redux)

Posted by pauldavies on February 23, 2006 | Comments (0)

"Most of the world's troubles seem to come from people who are too busy." —Evelyn Waugh

"Immense harm is caused by the belief that work is virtuous." —Bertrand Russell

Visitors to the Jack Daniel's distillery in Lynchburg, Tennessee, and now observant viewers of Tube station advertisements, are told a beautifully tragic story about how Gentleman Jack died as a drawn-out consequence of kicking a safe which he was unable to open when he turned up early for work one day. The accompanying moral about never turning up early to work is as sound as it is cheap.

Sensible people, from all over the world, and in every age of humanity, have noticed the dangers associated with caring too much and working too hard. Few, if any of them, have ever held positions in government.

This sad situation is due to the fact that the noble quality of idleness is wholly antithetical to the business of busy-bodyism. The inexhaustibility of the well of ways of asserting authority, into which those resourceful men and women involved in the politics of power can dip, assures the legacy continues, in the type of seamless handing down of authoritarian tendencies that almost no dictator has ever quite worked out how to achieve.

You may not think it, especially in certain cases, but MPs are among the hardest working groups of people around, working, if one chooses to believe them, a quite criminal 70 hours per week. This is not just a problem for the MPs' stress levels and general well-being. As we're told by the proponents of the Abolition of Parliament The Furtherance of Unaccountable Government The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, they simply don't have time to do everything they want to do. Or at least, and this is scarily apparent when one considers their capabilities, not to do it properly.

Unfortunately, it's got to the stage, as it has for a vast number of people who dream of one day jacking it all in for a nice BMW and a big house in the Cotswolds, or, failing that, a leap from the top floor of their office block, that MPs are too busy working to see that this same excessive effort is actually killing them.

This is especially true in Britain, where, according to a recent report, the lemming classes work longer, and therefore less productively, than anywhere else in Europe. And don't expect things to change any time soon; as Bertrand Russell told us, "[i]n countries which do not enjoy Mediterranean sunshine, idleness is more difficult and a great public propaganda will be required to inaugurate it." This doesn't mean, of course, that we shouldn't try.

And try we must, for work kills more people every year than war. More than drugs and alcohol combined. That's one every 15 seconds, if we're to believe the UN reports. It's also, as The Idler's Tom Hodgkinson points out "an amount equivalent to two September 11 disasters every day."

Choose your evidence: be it accidents due to overwork, stress-related illnesses, the onset of poor health from sitting around on one's arse all day (long-term job strain is worse for your heart than gaining 40lbs in weight or aging thirty years) or grinding teeth in one's sleep (increasingly prevalent among today's young professionals, the British Dental Health Foundation tells us): work is perhaps the most malevolent thing man has ever invented.

Even amid this cacophony of scary statistics, government departments get their own special place. Apparently, "82% of workers at the DWP have suffered ill health as a result of pressure of work." Well, you would, wouldn't you?

But why stop at work? The first thing most people do, if they deign to take a break from the grind, is to pick up a newspaper, which then either deluges them with the brain-numbing exploits of people who might just be more foolish than they or stories intended to raise stress levels still further, which, one is brought to think, can't do much good for post-break productivity.

"The absence of newspapers, the absence of news about what men are doing in different parts of the world to make life more liveable or unliveable is the greatest single boon. If we could just eliminate newspapers a great advance would be made, I am sure of it. Newspapers engender lies, hatred, greed, envy, suspicion, fear, malice. We don't need the truth as it is dished up to us in the daily papers. We need peace and solitude and idleness. If we could all go on strike and honestly disavow all interest in what our neighbour is doing we might get a new lease of life." —Henry Miller

The dubiously ironic twist to this tale is that were we all to miraculously heed dear Henry's advice and break out in the occasional bout of contemplation, we would almost certainly produce more genuinely entertaining and newsworthy stories, like those about people smart enough to run away with 40 million quid.

Indeed, the clever people behind that particularly audacious escapade have a lot to teach the busy little bees buzzing around Westminster in an orgy of stings and irritations. The amount of thought that no doubt went into the heist was almost certainly greater than that which went into formulating, well, any of the current government's somewhat questionable legislation.

And the reason for this is that the armed gang quite clearly have a sounder view of work, and have acquired the appropriate skills for the task. Politicians have also acquired appropriate skills. However, in an unfortunate twist, it turns out that these skills have nothing to do with knowledge of how to make a country work particularly well, providing, of course, that one's idea of what makes a successful country is not the same as that which makes a successful advertising campaign.

"First of all: what is work? Work is of two kinds: first, altering the position of matter at or near the earth's surface relatively to other such matter; second, telling other people to do so. The first kind is unpleasant and ill paid; the second is pleasant and highly paid. The second kind is capable of indefinite extension: there are not only those who give orders, but those who give advice as to what orders should be given. Usually two opposite kinds of advice are given simultaneously by two organised bodies of men; this is called politics. The skill required for this kind of work is not knowledge of the subjects as to which advice is given, but knowledge of the art of persuasive speaking and writing, i.e. of advertising." —Bertrand Russell

A large part of the realm of advertising is the look of activity, even if in actual fact, none is really needed. Activity is thought to be reassuring. This can be something of a trap, however, and it is an unusually intelligent man that avoids it. Think of the difference between your average ITV football commentator and Richie Benaud. Only one knows the advantage of silence. Only one is any good.

As is so often the way, perceptive individuals have known and warned about these dangers for centuries. And, as tends to happen in human society, they've been subsequently shunned into madness.

"The breathless haste with which they work is already beginning to infect the old Europe… One thinks with a watch in one's hand, even as one eats one's midday meal while reading the latest news of the stock-market; one lives as if one 'might miss out on something'." —Friedrich Nietzsche

This need to be doing something, as we, the partially-enlightened elite know, is counter-productive in its efforts; no more so than when it invades the political sphere. So long as those concerned avoided a full-blown descent into Oblomovitis, we would, I humbly propose, be significantly better off if today's politicians took the advice of the leader of yesterday's crop:

"You must sleep sometime between lunch and dinner, and no halfway measures. Take off your clothes and get into bed. That's what I always do. Don't think you will be doing less work because you sleep during the day. That's a foolish notion held by people who have no imagination. You will be able to accomplish more. You get two days in one – well, at least one and a half, I'm sure." —Winston Churchill

When given time to sleep on a matter such as the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, it is unlikely that one could wake up still thinking it was a good idea. The other major advantage is that in reading such a soporific Bill, one is liable to be clamouring for some shut-eye, and it's rarely a good idea to fight such an urge.

In short, something has to be done. However, given the aforementioned problems associated with these inclement Isles and the fact that anyone desirous of becoming an MP is unlikely to ever recognise the value of idleness, the problem is not easily solved. Whenever possible, any given MP is quite likely to be devoting as much time as they can muster towards messing around, and thereafter messing up, the way the country is run.

Truth be told, these MPs, of now and of the future, are probably already lost. We can't save them, so we shouldn't try. However, we can save ourselves.

The inevitable STV revolution will demand that our elected representatives work harder in their constituencies, leaving less time to muck about with the pointless legislation used to make us all feel so much safer. Obviously, the legislation that does make it through against the new tighter time constraints will be just as bad as before, but until there are greater incentives for the Genuinely Bright to enter parliament, this is a problem we're going to have to accept (and once the Lords goes, it's a problem we're going to have to wash down with something very strong indeed). However, with a focus shifted away from the 'big stuff', we can reasonably expect STV to drastically lessen the amount of silly legislation thrust forward with the inherent lack of dignity of such a murderous lifestyle.

Prince Charles the dissident: the problem being…?

Posted by pauldavies on February 22, 2006 | Comments (0)

"It is not the purity of an angel which is so valuable, as the fact it can fly." —Henry Miller, Tropic of Capricorn

Prince Charles may not be as funny as his dad, but his comments are often equally newsworthy. What's more, when Charles speaks, as opposed to Phillip, people tend to pay more attention, not instantly rejecting whatever has been said as xenophobic ramblings of a barmy old clown.

This situation causes chagrin among many, jealous that Charlie's mere off-mic mumblings can be broadcast all over the world, yet their own voices—however much louder they shout—reach an audience of no more than a few angry men with beards, only 'listening' so that they may be 'listened' to in turn. The somewhat patronising tone of the Independent's take on the story is but one example of this.

All this is beside the point. Prince Charles is one of the few people with genuine influence who can openly criticise the government. There are others of course, but their numbers are dwindling, or their influence waning.

Opposition is not, you see, what it once was. Prince Charles, being an atavistic sort of gent, knows this, unwittingly or otherwise. When we declare, as a country, that we are going to bestow the government of the day with the power to pretty much act as they please for the next few years, as we indubitably do under the daft mechanism that is our entire electoral and parliamentary system, opposition to equally daft Acts and Bills can only come from a scant few quarters. A supine parliament, either whipped into toeing a fairly tragic line, ravaged by internal battles, or merely ineffective under the weight of the big fat party in power, is not great opposition, and a government without great opposition is generally not a great government.

Relying on the Lords and the Crown to voice dissent may be a little curious, but its better than an incurious absence. Lest we forget also that the simple act of disagreeing with the government is a good clue that Prince Charles is a stand up fellow; as the most-used quote on this blog serves to remind us, "every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." And the opinions of stand-up fellows should be cherished, not suppressed.

When living under a governmental structure that has a habit of letting those in charge entertain their unthinking whims without too much fear of a reprising smack, it is the right of everyone to voice their opposition, and for those whose voice is in the privileged position of being paid attention to, that right becomes something of a duty.

Tony backs STV

Posted by malcolmclark on February 21, 2006 | Comments (3)

Yes, it is official. The great man himself supports STV. Last night one of the foremost political minds and communicators of the last fifty years came out publicly in support of voting reform for Westminster. In response to a question on the subject, he boldy stated "I am in favour of STV ... the right to a preferential vote would go a long way to improving our democracy." Thus spoke Tony Benn at a meeting at UCL's Bloomsbury Theatre.

Tony's passion, wit and honest approach kept the audience rapt for over two hours. He started with a 40 minute tour de force exploration of the state of British democracy and its historical context. The bulk of the time though was taken up with him answering question after question from the audience.

Among the many pearls of wisdom, Tony made some very telling comments about voting and political participation. He - rightly - believes that voting is about power, and that unless politicians can be properly held accountable by their electorate, then that relationship is fundamentally imbalanced. He suggests that we should all ask five questions of anyone in a position of power; the final question being "how can I get rid of them?" While all MPs could respond with a pat "you can vote me out at election time", this is simply not the practical reality for many people. Blaenau Gwent in 2005, Wyre Forest in 2001, Tatton in 1997 are the exceptions that prove the rule: that outside of marginal constituencies it is very difficult to unseat an incumbent MP.

Tony also tackled systems. He repeatedly stated his opposition to closed lists, such as that used for electing MEPs, as they give too much power to political parties. He illustrated this point with an anecdote from his time serving on Labour's National Policy Forum, under Neil Kinnock's leadership. The issue of electoral systems was being discussed and Tony asked whether, if they were to introduce a closed list, would he (as a known 'trouble-maker') be at the bottom. To which Neil just gave a knowing smile.

Untitled posts are just not the done thing, however apt they may be

Posted by pauldavies on February 21, 2006 | Comments (0)

Ideas are something of a strange concept this morning. I did wonder for a while if one could use the Abolition of Parliament Bill (as all the cool kids are now calling it) to get electoral reform through on the sly (slip a few quid to a minister, and hey presto—a new electoral system!). But I realised that without a pointlessly long dreamy bit of chat about what we could all do once the objective had been achieved, it would either be too short or too silly to bother with.

I also wondered about sharing some of the fascinating* research I've done about voting system theory (Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem anyone?), but that was not nearly silly enough. Then there was Malta, land of the unbridled STV. It works rather well, so I'm told, and there are a couple of interesting twists to it. But that could take a while, because it kind of deserves to be done properly.

So, in the meantime, get stuck in to the civil liberties thing, for these moments of actual importance don't come around too often in the crazy vicissitudinary world in which we crawl about (central topic excluded, of course).

*note: not actually fascinating

Harebrained

Posted by pauldavies on February 20, 2006 | Comments (0)

Stat of the day, possibly apocryphal, but I really rather hope not.

The word 'harebrained' was coined in association with Thomas Hare, an early champion (perhaps even the inventor) of STV. It came about because STV is just so darn complex. Apparently.

Other sources, although possibly not to be trusted, dispute this, claiming that harebrained has been with us since 1548.

UPDATE: is is just me or does his picture on Wikipedia look a bit like Tony Hart?

You say you want a revolution? Well, here's an idea...

Posted by pauldavies on February 20, 2006 | Comments (2)

"I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is the victory over self." —Aristotle

"And all the lies you said, who did you save?" —The Libertines, Don't Look Back Into the Sun

It is only on the most rare occasions that news involving Silvio Berlusconi, a British cabinet minister and allegations of fraud on an amusingly grand scale are trumped in the daily race for the most worthwhile topic of bloggage.

However, great as the temptation to devote yet more time to our slick-n-shiny friend is, the gods are demanding a change of direction. They're also, if rumours are to be believed, after a return of the anti-crap-government puppets. And about time too. If nothing else, it will open up the debate over what looks more disgusting: the latex masks, or the policies that they're parodying?

For even by the very high standards set by the many power-crazed groups of killjoy authoritarians and their life-long quests to wreak their revenge on the society that saw fit to bully them at school (or governments as they're collectively known), the current clowns in charge of Britain are proving to be spectacularly egregious in every area which they deem it their divine right to poke their collective nose into.

This is probably due as much to their prolonged stay in a position of comedically disproportionate power as to their depraved and deranged miens, but such psychological nit-picking, is, in the context, one for the post-mortem, rather than the efforts to have them put down for everyone else's good, and probably their own as well.

Just how this lethal political injection is going to be administered is a toughie, to say the least. Exciting numbers of those who've cared enough to pay attention to what's been going on have had enough, and as usual, the round-up of the would-be-assassins' guild has been undertaken by the Internet's favourite supplier of political hemlock, Mr Tim Ireland.

While all of the esteemed members of this latest fellowship are agreed that being subjected to a government powered by notions that in any other walk of life would lead to their purveyor being locked up or stoned to death (depending on your place of domicile and moral fortitude), they are less certain about exactly how to go about actually achieving anything.

"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." —H. L. Mencken

An Anyone But Labour electoral backlash is the most obvious solution, but what then? Someone is going to end up catapulted into the exalted seats of the governmental front bench, and whoever they may be, they will no doubt be less concerned with repealing the crap that indirectly got them there than adding a layer of their own ill-thought-out falderal on top.

But basing solutions on history, psychology, politics and other such pseudo-scientific sometime-bastions of rationality just isn't fun (in the sense of having a big ol' barny). It only ever leads to the realisation that these are the same problems of taming power that have blighted ever society other than the Smurfs for a good few thousand years. And as highly as I recommend sitting back, grabbing the H. L. Mencken and researching the topic of tax-evasion, this is apparently a time for action over cynicism (although it should be noted that I'm not entirely sold on this point, I am game for a laugh).

In short, therefore, if one wants to tame power, one should spread its dissemination as far as possible. This means voter choice, which means STV. To avoid being swamped by legislation that is either criminally insane, just plain rubbish, or even those really special Bills which are both, government must be made as ineffectual as is humanly possible. Governments, given their remit, the mountains of work they have to do, and the manner in which they have to do it to a) get elected and b) stay there, are inherently, intrinsically, fundamentally, (and all sorts of other over-used adverbs) incapable of running a country well from the top. Thus, don't let them. Don't let them neuter the one remaining effectual barrier to their ill-advised attempts to butcher intelligence and decency in the name of playing God. But this starts to go beyond the scope of this blog (that, and in outlining my plans to save the world, I hit the 10,000 word mark before the half-way point, so felt obliged to stop for reasons associated with the preservation of sanity). Anyway, we have a starting point, it's called STV. And it's as important as it is unsexy.

As for how such a thing may be achieved, the answer may lie with an Anyone But Labour campaign after all—either we get Scenario A, whereby the campaign picks up such pace that Labour become convinced the only way they'll survive is some sort of electoral reform (not a great one this, and they'll no doubt pick a rubbish sort of reform), or we get Scenario B, whereby Labour lose enough votes that they trail the Tories by a good few percentage points in the popular vote and we end up with a hung parliament, a couple of which are probably needed to finally smash some sense into the system.

Party politics: rotting brains and making decent people sick for 6000 years. No wonder Labour are trying to ban it, they have our best interests at heart, dontcha know?

Lib Dem contenders spell out coalition terms

Posted by malcolmclark on February 16, 2006 | Comments (0)

Fantasy politics time, though a hung parliament may not be such a theoretical concept come 2009/2010. In a BBC News 24 debate this afternoon, the Liberal Democrat leadership contenders have been setting out how they would respond in the event of a hung parliament after the next election. Sir Menzies Campbell and Simon Hughes both said they would insist on the introduction of proportional representation as part of any deal, Huhne made no such demand. The full story is here, but a summary of what each said follows:

Campbell: “If anyone is tasked by the Queen to form a government and produce a Queen's Speech in the House of Commons, which does not contain proposals for electoral reform, then I would take my Liberal Democrat colleagues into the lobby against that Queen's Speech and, yes, if necessary precipitate a second general election.”

Hughes: “The day after the election, if there is no party with a majority, I would say to the other party leaders 'you have a fair parliament in your programme and legislate for it and then we'll talk. If you don't we are not going to, and every vote you put to the Commons will depend on its merits and there will be no deal.”

Huhne: “I've been involved in politics for 25 years not to be a second best Conservative or a second best Labour person, but to get Liberal Democrat values, principles, ideas, plans into power. The more votes, the more seats we have the more influence we have, the more chance we have of getting that programme into power.”

Information information information

Posted by pauldavies on February 16, 2006 | Comments (0)

Beneath the fold: Stuart Stoner's notes on the meeting of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, discussing Arbuthnott. Plenty to mull over, if you're that way inclined.

Labour Committee Chair Mohammed Sarwar asked if there had been any govt response. Arbuthnott said there had been no official contact from Alistair Darling or Jack McConnell bar acknowledging receipt. No mention of response re decoupling election other than what read in papers…

Labour MP Ian Davidson took a very critical line. He started by asking why the Commission had started with an assumption of proportionality when the terms of reference of the Commission were somewhat ill-defined – “the exercise was rigged from the very beginning”. Sir J and Nicola McEwen (Edinburgh Uni academic and another member of the Commission who spoke on the more techy electoral issues) replied that they interpreted proportionality as a key component of the devolution convention, and said it was popular with the people of Scotland. Moreover a desire to remove proportionality was not one they had encountered with any regularity. This was a key reason why they could not find an appropriate model to retain coterminosity. Also they said there was no strong case for this. Ian Davidson also asked whether the majority of the members of the Commission were known supporters of PR – had this influenced their views? Arbuthnott denied this.

Lib Dem Danny Alexander asked if they had looked at whether Westminster MPs should be elected by PR. Arbuthnott said they didn’t look at that specifically, but that there was a huge amount of coverage of the case for proportionality after the 2005 election. The Commission had been faced with a conflict of views from ordinary people. Using focus group evidence, the public seemed, when asked, to recognise FPTP as familiar but when they were further probed about proportionality they liked the sound of it. There was no easy definition of the views of the public, although the Scottish attitudes survey included in the report should there was a clear majority for PR. But this goes outside its remit, and therefore it didn’t make recommendations.

There was then a long discussion of the virtues of parity and community in defining electoral boundaries. The Commission argued that the balance had swung too far towards parity, although both were important. They said this was particularly an issue in rural and remote Scotland. This tension was a fundamental aspect of political science. McEwen pointed out that at public meetings no-one mentioned parity, but lots mentioned community. They also called for more co-ordination in terms of setting local government, Holyrood and Westminster boundaries. Parity as an issue was also somewhat mitigated by having list members. Also pointed out that a deviation from parity used to be tolerated to a much greater extent. Ian Davidson asked if it was fair to take land mass into account as an issue in determining boundaries. Is there an anti-urban bias? Arbuthnott did not accept this, and said they were not seeking to do work of Boundary Commission for them. ID did not understand the ‘leap of faith’ from sparsity to over-representation – the Commission was not entitled to move away from equal votes of equal value. McEwen pointed out that concessions with the Islands was already factored in.

Conservative David Mundell spoke about the lack of knowledge of STV – how do we overcome this before 2007 elections? Arbuthnott said this was part of the reason decoupling had been recommended, but much else in the report mentioned the importance of voter education. If they are not decoupled we may well learn lessons from 2007. people should be clear on what basis they are voting. Pointed to the large number of spoiled ballots in London when multiple systems were used. There is an urgent need to get this educational work under way now.

Discussion moved on to the regional vote. Ian Davidson called list members “assisted places scheme” members. Why had they not addressed the issue of thousands of Labour regional votes being wasted. Arbuthnott said they had been attracted to the New Zealand model, terminology used – talking of list members and 1st and 2nd votes was unhelpful in terms of the legitimacy of regional members. Also the Commission was not looking at today, but the future – current voting patterns may change in any case. Labour votes in Glasgow could well become important. Nicola McEwen said she understood the point being made but pointed out that this is only a problem because Labour does disproportionately well in Glasgow – they get more than their share of the vote. A vote for Labour is a vote denied to another party. The regional vote determined proportionality. She also said that the only alternative would have been STV which would have eliminated this problem, but in terms of fulfilling the criteria the Commission felt that MMP (as they called it) was better.

Mohammed Sarwar said that there were 11 MSPs interfering in his constituency. Why had they not addressed this? MS was once a fan of PR but not now after seeing this. Arbuthnott said he took a more positive view about wanting to better define the role of each tier of elected member, and the role of regional MSPs. Need to make better use of the MMP system. The remit of MSPs should be clear, and the role of these should not be diminished in any way. And the public should not be restricted in who they can go to. All of this should operate in the interests of the citizen.

MS asked why if STV was good for local and Euros, why not for MSPs? Arbuthnott said that at the present time (and he stressed that) they did not think it would be correct to move to STV. One key consequence of STV (and this was the major point) was that it would create 1 constituency with 7 members across more than half the Scottish land mass. How can they decide how to govern half the land mass of Scotland? This seemed to the Commission to be a very considerable difficulty. McEwen acknowledged the advantages of STV: all elected on the same basis, enhance voter choice and power. Yet there were disadvantages which on balance they felt outweighed the advantages. Electoral systems should be best for the institution they would elect. STV was not the best for a policy-making, legislative body. It can encourage clientelism and localism, and under STV you are less able to have positive action policies. And the representation of the Highlands and Islands is a real difficulty. But this is not a problem in Euro elections thus their recommendation. For electing a government and a legislative body, this is not as good a system. Ian Davidson asked why 7 couldn’t do this in rural areas when there were just as great (if not greater) problems in Glasgow? McEwen said it was more to do with practical considerations, e.g. travel. Arbuthnott said STV was much less difficult to implement in Glasgow.

MS asked why not 2 MSPs elected in each seat by STV and have 5 in rural areas? Then you would have at least 3 elections under the same system. Nicola McEwen said that specific recommendation had not been brought to them, although she did point out that they had tried to reduce the number of systems by recommendation for Euro elections.

Angus MacNeil (SNP) asked about voter confusion under the current system and said STV maximised power to voters. What was more important, more democracy or more proportionality? Arbuthnott agreed there was a good deal of confusion especially about having two types of MSP. This came out in the Scottish attitudes survey. A lot of work needs to be done on educating the electorate. McEwen pointed out that survey work showed that people understood the system less second time around – perhaps because the Electoral Commission campaign had put an emphasis on getting the vote out rather than how you vote – the two should go together. She pointed out that they rejected having a majority of regional members to give more proportionality because of the uncertainty over the role of regional members. Until their role is defined, their numbers should not be increased. Their objective was to make sure any changes they made weren’t detrimental in terms of proportionality etc.

There was a discussion about how do we educate. Arbuthnott said they needed to tackle disengagement early, and could do this as part of the existing curriculum. The Electoral Reform Society got a name check about the good work we do, but in the end this was the responsibility of the Electoral Commission. Arbuthnott asked if work could be rationalised and made more coherent? Angus MacNeil asked whether reducing the voting age to 16 would help. Arbuthnott agreed that this was a very important practical matter.

David Mundell said that politicians should help in this, and surely it was unhelpful when a politician (naming no names but Peter Hain) talked about losers becoming winners. Arbuthnott said that politicians do try hard. Mundell repeated the question. Arbuthnott said he knew what he was getting at but would not go there. Mohammed Sarwar pointed out that it was the Conservatives who had won under the system and that Labour were losers.

Katy Clark (Lab) said they had recommended three systems of election – was that less confusing than what we had now? Arbuthnott said that education and advice would go a long way to helping with this. He recognised the point made and said the Commission had wrestled with it. McEwen said they wouldn’t have had three systems if they were starting from scratch. There was no strong evidence that having lots of systems was a big enough problem in and of itself, although there were problems having such elections on the same day. Clark asked if the changes would make the system more confusing. Should we not have a simple system which everyone understands and where all votes count. McEwen said these were two aspects of the Commission’s remit and they had borne them in mind. There was a need for an understanding of the relationship of the vote with electing the government. She also recognised the message behind the questions, why not FPTP. Yes it is the simplest system but it is not perceived as fair. Labour is advantaged by the system. She also pointed out that there is no perfect electoral system. Another advantage of MMP over FPTP or STV is that it allows the voter to vote for a constituency representative and a party of government, and they need not be the same. Arbuthnott also said that yes wasted votes are a feature in the present system but circumstances change. Arbuthnott also said that many problems could be overcome by clarifying the role of elected representatives.

Danny Alexander asked about dual candidacy (a question I planted!). He pointed out that the UK government as expressed in the Govt of Wales Bill did not think that dual candidacy was a good idea. Why should it continue? He also quoted the Peter Hain/ Rhodri Morgan press release saying that Arbuthnott would have come to a different conclusion if he had seen the abuse in Wales. Did Arbuthnott agree? Arbuthnott said yes of course the material in Wales had been considered. They found no evidence that it was a problem for voters, nor did the Electoral Commission. Idea of ‘losers’ then elected by another branch of PR is a hangover from FPTP where 1st is a winner everyone else is a loser. This is only so in a majoritarian system. The logic of PR is that you choose the best people elected by the people. A ban on dual candidacy would restrict voter choice and potentially lead to a diminution of the quality of constituency candidates. If this is forced through with a lack of consensus, this could alienate voters. Open lists as they recommend would be a much better way of addressing this issue. Taking all the issues as a clutch, a ban on dual candidacy is not as straightforward as it seems.

Ian Davidson asked about the point in Euro elections about the difficulty of developing a profile. He pointed out that the majority of candidates are elected because they represent a party. If STV was used for Euro elections, might we not see lots of candidates trying to promote themselves possibly beyond their remit? McEwen said she would accept some of the argument about candidates promoting themselves. Yet there is a lack of recognition of all elected members but especially MEPs. A consequence of STV would be that MEPs would be more visible. Ian Davidson said this would encourage a constituency role, and competition between colleagues of all parties and others. McEwen conceded this and said it was a reason why they had rejected it for MSP elections. But there would be 7 MEPs covering the whole of Scotland, Scotland’s ‘team’, and they are not there to deal with constituency roles. Introducing STV has the potential to improve the knowledge of the European Parliament. The disadvantages of STV are not as prominent in this case, whereas the advantages of increasing voter choice etc are still there. Angus MacNeil said STV put choice in the hands of voters, it was putting citizens first. It might not help political parties but STV hands power to voters. Arbuthnott said this was precisely the view that the Commission took. He did add that there was no ideal system.

Mohammed Sarwar thanked them for attending and said a Select Committee report would be issued in due course.

Warming up slowly, it must be time for more Scotland

Posted by pauldavies on February 16, 2006 | Comments (0)

Marvellous. We seem to be back. Along with all the spam. Great. Anyways, with politics in the South seemingly more concerned with kicking the metaphorical crap out of each and every one of us and our precious few remaining freedoms, it seems sensible to stick to Scotland, especially as the Arbuthnott Report is still doing the rounds.

One question that is now being asked is 'should the people of Scotland have a referendum to sort out how many voting systems they are forced to play with?' Apparently plenty of Labour MPs think so, as they've just demanded one. This might just be a clever ruse to overshadow some of the other concerns of the report, but it really isn't my place to say...

And I thought I was the one who got frozen

Posted by pauldavies on February 13, 2006 | Comments (0)

Well, yes, this is interesting.

Howdy folks, welcome once again...

I was going to return to this 'ere blog with some sort of epic off-topic babble about dancing bears and the fun to be had by throwing oneself starkers into -30 degree snow, but it appears the blog is not well and needs some rather urgent attention. Anyone with the nerd equivalent of a hot water bottle and some thermals is welcome to help out.

An active North-West front

Posted by malcolmclark on February 08, 2006 | Comments (0)

The NW of England is a hotbed for campaign activity at the moment. There'll be a presence at Labour's Spring Conference in Blackpool this weekend, including a fringe meeting on Saturday (details below). Then there is a big public meeting in Liverpool organised by the Merseyside & Cheshire Make Votes Count group on Thu 16 Feb (again, details below). One to get to if you live in that part of the country.

ERS/LCER Fringe at Lab Spring Conference

Sat 11 Feb: 12.30-2pm "Who do you represent - and how?"
Location: Opera House, Circle Bar, Blackpool Winter Gardens. Conference delegates / pass holders only.
Speakers: Dr Colin Copus, Institute of Local Government Studies, and Ken Ritchie, Electoral Reform Society. Chair: Mary Southcott, Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform. Refeshments provided.

Merseyside & Cheshire Make Votes Count forum
‘Making Local Votes Count’ -

Date: Thursday 16th February
Time: 7pm to 9pm
Venue: The Alexandra Room, Liverpool Parish Church, The Old Church Yard, Liverpool L2 HTZ (Off Chapel Street, opposite The Thistle Hotel)

Facilitated by : -

David Bird - Retired Regional Officer of Amicus trade union.
Peter Facey - Director of New Politics Network, Co-director
Charter 88, & former candidate for the LibDems
in London Assembly & European Parliament elections.
Frank Kennedy – North West Regional Campaigns Coordinator for Friends
of the Earth.
Councillor Steve Radford – Liverpool City Council (The Liberal Party).
Mary Southcott – Parliamentary and Political Officer for The Labour
Campaign for Electoral Reform.

Admission free or by a donation towards the cost of the forum.

For more information please contact:
David Bird - 9, Osmaston Road,Birkenhead CH42 8PY
Telephone 0151-608-2698 E-mail : randd@supanet.com

Cameron as the next MVC poster-boy?

Posted by malcolmclark on February 07, 2006 | Comments (0)

There is a genius photo in some of today's press (Guardian and Metro, maybe others) of David Cameron at a school yesterday. As you will see from the image, he is pointing to the words "making votes count". Is this a sign of Cameron's conversion to our cause? Maybe he is trying to get a message through to us, below the radar, that he really wants to support voting reform but just can't quite yet go public on it? Well the door is always open here if he wants to talk. And we've written to him recently to say pretty much the same, highlighting the current bias in the system against his party.

Cameron's school visit was before his speech on the launch of the Conservative's democracy task force. He said plenty on restoring the role of and confidence in Parliament and MPs and challenging apathy and alienation. Of interest to us is his comment on the importance of constituency link: "look at the role of the MP in his or her constituency. It's a powerful link. It is in that role that MPs are most trusted." Rest of speech as reported in Guardian and others.

Update 08/02

Received this comment from James Graham about the constituency link that Cameron so praises:

"It is such a powerful link that when Cameron's predeccessor in Witney defected to Labour he had to bog off to St Helens to get re-elected. And of course, being a safe Labour seat, even his butler didn’t dissuade St Helens voters from electing him. Cameron's political career is founded on the reality that the 'constituency link' is a mythical construct."

Small Technical Problem

Posted by clarejones on February 06, 2006 | Comments (0)

Unfortunately, the comments facility isn't working at the moment, but please e-mail in with any blog comments you would like to make.

Full blog comment services will be re-established as of next week, upon the eagerly anticipated return of Blog Master Paul.

If you want to count votes, don't ask a Republican

Posted by lewisbaston on February 03, 2006 | Comments (0)

You couldn't make it up. In the election for a new House Majority Leader in Congress, there was bafflement when the turnout was apparently over 100 per cent. Florida-style voting had arrived on Capitol Hill.

The count was deemed valid despite confusion when the number of votes cast exceeded the number of Republicans thought to be present.

Vote-counters had forgotten about the Puerto Rican delegate, who is not allowed to vote on the House floor but who does receive a vote in conference.

I could make a snide comment about most Republicans tending to assume that the only thing a Hispanic American could be doing at their caucus meeting was serving coffee. Oops, just did.

At least one congressman had a sense of humour about it, as the New York Sun recorded:

"We were pleased to learn we're not corrupt, just stupid." one congressman said after the caucusing

It has a certain ring to it, doesn't it, as an election slogan?

Lets indulge him...

Posted by jonpyke on February 02, 2006 | Comments (0)

“…but he overcame them all… …through the noble prowess of himself and his knights of the Round Table.” Malory, Le Morte d’Arthur Book I Chapter VII

In Paul’s absence in the frozen lands of Russia, perhaps readers will allow me to present some wild musings which (honest) do have some sort of relevance to electoral reform. It’s a think-piece, so bear with me…

It struck me this morning that the tenacity with which the myth of the working majority has stuck in the collective minds of the English personality is a bit like the legend of King Arthur. Both are a blend of heavily romanticised anecdotal evidence and wishful thinking. Both have a place in the public consciousness.

Any need to call on the support of MPs outside of the ruling party on a particular issue has long been seen not as an indication of consensus, or indeed evidence of the supposed freedom and discretion of MPs to make individual decisions based on the needs of constituents; but rather weakness, instability and chaos. Coalitions, one would have you believe, just don’t work.

Well, plenty of PR based governments today by their very existence disagree with that statement. Strong government isn’t the same as effective government, but try telling that to John Prescott and most of the other pythonesque Knights of the Round Table Cabinet Sub-committee on Electoral Policy. Witness Geoff ‘frigid panda’ Hoon’s confusion when faced with questions on the Arbuthnott report recently; nonplussed doesn’t do him justice. And as for John Prescotts ruminations on voting reform, well we know he’s not a fan, but his appointment as Chair of the sub-committee suggests the end result will be replete with his own brand of pie-saturated tongue-lather. (It can’t be said often enough…)

Tuesday night’s commons defeat and subsequent embarrassment over the Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill was due mainly to incompetence on the Chief Whips part, but there is a wider significance for a government still getting used to life without the disproportionate majority of its last two terms (which countless posts on this and other esteemed blogs have attributed correctly to our archaic and capricious electoral system.) But until we shake off this myth of strong government only being achievable through a large majority, and begin to change the attitude of political culture toward coalitions in this country, we will like Arthur be stranded in the dark ages.

Jon is one of the X-change Youth and Student Officers who decided to have a crack at the blog today in Pauls abscence after drinking too much coffee. Normal service will now resume.

Frustrating times for Berlusconi - or not

Posted by lewisbaston on February 02, 2006 | Comments (0)

couldn't let this go unremarked in Paul's absence. Perhaps Silvio got an idea from this post here on Italy, but he has promised that he will abstain from sex until the election on 9 April. However, the electorate will presumably have to take his word for it (an unreliable procedure at the best of times) that he is fulfilling this pledge. No Liberal Democrat leadership candidates have yet announced that they are following Silvio's example.

UPDATE (2 February)
Silvio now says it was only a joke and of course he's not going to abstain until the election. Perhaps he can use the same excuse for his 2001 promises to revive the economy and resolve his conflicts of interest.

‘Climate change is too big an issue for one party’

Posted by clarejones on February 01, 2006 | Comments (0)

Climate change has of late become an inescapable scientific reality, vaguely acknowledged and yet strategically avoided by many governments worldwide. The economic implications of any radical policy implementation that would seriously reduce the level of green house gas emissions is too worrying for a dominant party to consider. Increased petrol taxes are unlikely to ever please the voting public.

A recent letter to the Independent by MP Peter Ainsworth speaks out on behalf of an environmental initiative, that requests the putting aside of policy differences in light of the ‘critical situation’ of global warming, in order to try and remedy the problem. The initiative includes representatives from the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, as well as Plaid Cymru, the DUP and the SNP. However Margaret Beckett has so far refused to support the initiative, and so the group continues to lack the crucial involvement and commitment of the Labour Party.

As Peter Ainsworth poignantly describes, ‘climate change is too big an issue for one party, or even one generation of politicians, to tackle on their own’. It is clear that the kind of selfless power needed to enforce environmental change could only come from a form of party coalition, beyond the limitations of any environmental regulatory body. I therefore fear that our future existence on this planet may lie in the capability of political parties to work alongside each other, in order to achieve a greater good.